Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJun 4, 2007
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia, the Executive Office of the
President, and Independent Agencies
(TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Transportation Policy
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Transportation Policy
June 4, 2007
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33551
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The Bush Administration requested $138.5 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments) for these
agencies for FY2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the $136.2 billion Congress provided in the
agencies’ FY2006 appropriations act (this FY2006 figure reflects a 1.0% across-the-board
rescission that was included in the FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 109148). The total FY2006 funding (after scorekeeping adjustments) for the agencies in this bill was
$146.3 billion, due to emergency supplemental funding provided to deal with the effects of the
Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.
In the appropriations process during the 109th Congress, the House-passed version of H.R. 5576,
the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill provided a net total
of $139.6 billion for FY2007, $3.4 billion (2%) over the amount provided in the FY2006 act and
$1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request (after scorekeeping adjustments).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576 on July 26, 2006,
recommending a net total of $141.2 billion, $3.6 billion (3%) over the amount provided in the
FY2006 Act and $2.6 billion (2%) over the Administration request. Both the House-passed and
Senate-reported bills provided significant increases over the requested levels of funding for
aviation programs and Amtrak, for a number of programs under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and for the Executive Office of the President. H.R. 5576 expired with the
close of the 109th Congress.
The Senate did not consider H.R. 5576, and Congress did not enact a regular FY2007 TTHUD
appropriations bill (nor most other FY2007 appropriations bills). Instead, FY2007 funds were
provided in a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383),
which funded agencies at the lower of the House- or Senate-passed levels or their FY2006 levels
(since the Senate had not passed an FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill, TTHUD agencies were
funded at the lower of the House-passed or FY2006 levels). On February 15, 2007, President
Bush signed the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), which
provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder of FY2007. The law provided
agencies with funding for FY2007 essentially at their FY2006 levels, except where otherwise
statedi. Both DOT and HUD received increases over their regular FY2006 levels (excluding
FY2006 supplemental funding). FY2007 funding levels for programs, projects, and activities
were not specified in P.L. 110-5. This report will not be updated.
Congressional Research Service
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Overview ....................................................................................................................................2
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures ..........................................................3
Title I: Transportation Appropriations..........................................................................................6
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues .................................................7
Amtrak ...........................................................................................................................8
Aviation ..........................................................................................................................9
Surface Transportation .................................................................................................. 11
Maritime Administration (MARAD) ............................................................................. 11
Title II: Department of the Treasury .......................................................................................... 12
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue Service) ....................... 14
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ..................................................................................... 14
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development......................................................... 16
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues.................. 18
Community Development Fund and related programs ................................................... 19
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled....................................................... 20
Public Housing/HOPE VI.............................................................................................. 20
Title IV: The Judiciary............................................................................................................... 21
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues ....................................................................... 21
FY2007 Request and Appropriation .............................................................................. 23
House Action ................................................................................................................ 24
Senate Action................................................................................................................ 24
Supreme Court.............................................................................................................. 25
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ................................................................ 25
U.S. Court of International Trade .................................................................................. 26
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ..................................... 26
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) ...................................................... 28
Federal Judicial Center.................................................................................................. 28
United States Sentencing Commission........................................................................... 28
Judiciary Retirement Funds ........................................................................................... 28
Administrative Provisions ............................................................................................. 29
Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President ................................................................................................. 30
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues ......................................... 31
Title VII: Independent Agencies ................................................................................................ 38
Federal Election Commission (FEC) ............................................................................. 40
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) ................................................................... 40
General Services Administration (GSA) ........................................................................ 40
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)....................................................................................... 41
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund) ................................................................... 42
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ...................................................................... 43
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ............................................... 43
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)....................................................................... 44
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)................................................................................... 45
Congressional Research Service
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Postal Service ............................................................................................................... 46
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General Provisions Government-Wide .............................. 47
Cuba Sanctions ................................................................................................................... 49
Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of
the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations ..........................................................4
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2006-FY2007 .......................4
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, FY2002FY2007....................................................................................................................................5
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007......................6
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007 ................... 12
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ........... 16
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007.......................................... 21
Table 8. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds
Appropriated to the President Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ......................................... 30
Table 9. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding Recommendations for Federal
Drug Control Programs in the Executive Office of the President, FY2007 .............................. 37
Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ......................... 38
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007......................... 41
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 52
Congressional Research Service
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On February 14, 2007, Congress passed H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution for FY2007, the fourth in a series of continuing resolutions; it was signed into law on
February 15, 2007 (P.L. 110-5). P.L. 110-5 provided funding for the remainder of FY2007 for
most federal agencies, including the Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing
and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the
President, and Independent Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provided funding generally at the level provided
to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated.
On July 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576, the FY2007
Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Committee
recommended an overall net funding level of $141.2 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping
adjustments), an increase of $3.6 billion (3%) over the amount in the FY2006 Act, $3.3 billion
(2%) over the Administration request, and $2.5 billion (2%) over the House-passed amount.1 The
Committee also recommended performance requirements for Amtrak, a 2.7% pay raise for federal
civilian workers for calendar year 2007, an easing of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba,
and a prohibition on easing restrictions on foreign control of U.S. airlines.
On June 14, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5576. The House approved an
overall funding level of $139.6 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), a $2 billion
(1%) increase over the amount in the FY2006 Act2 and a $1 billion (less than 1%) increase over
the Administration’s request. The House approved the Appropriations Committee’s
recommendations to provide the same pay raise (2.7%) to federal civilian workers as that
provided for uniformed military personnel for calendar year 2007, to impose performance
requirements on Amtrak, to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private collection
agencies to collect taxes, and to restrict the outsourcing of federal work. The House approved
several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for Amtrak and for selected
programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to ease restrictions on U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba (the Administration threatened to veto the bill if it contained
provisions weakening sanctions on Cuba3).
1
These comparisons are based on a Senate figure of $141.8 billion, which includes the Senate-reported level for
appropriations for the District of Columbia ($597 million). The House-passed version of H.R. 5576 includes
appropriations for the District of Columbia, but the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out the District of
Columbia’s appropriation in S. 3660.
2
FY2006 funding for some agencies funded in this act, notably the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and
Urban Development, was increased in supplemental appropriations acts to deal with the effects of the hurricanes that
struck Florida and the Gulf Coast in 2005. Total enacted FY2006 funding, including supplemental funding, after
scorekeeping adjustments, was $151.0 billion.
3
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.
5576—Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007,
June 14, 2006, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
1
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Overview
The President’s FY2007 request for the programs covered by this appropriations bill was $138.5
billion. This was $2.3 billion (2%) over the total in the FY2006 Act (after a 1.0% across-theboard rescission applied to the FY2006 funding). The FY2007 request included cuts from the
FY2006 funding level for grants to airports (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$394 million), and housing
programs for elderly and disabled in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (-$307
million). The FY2007 request for the Executive Office of the President was $225 million less
than the FY2006 figure; that reduction was primarily due to the proposed transfer of the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($225 million in FY2006) from the Executive Office of
the President to the Department of Justice.
The President’s FY2007 budget request proposals included:
•
funding Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail service, at $900 million,
down from $1.3 billion in FY2006;
•
reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) to $2.8 billion, $700 million below its ‘guaranteed’
authorization level, which would make the entire appropriations bill subject to a
point of order. The proposed level was also below the AIP formula threshold of
$3.2 billion, which could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions;
•
reducing funding for community and economic development programs under the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to $6.8 billion, $815
million below the amount provided in the FY2006 Act;
•
reducing funding for housing for elderly and disabled persons under HUD by
$307 million (32%), from $971 million for FY2006 to $664 million for FY2007;
•
eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States Postal Service
for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any funding requested for Postal
Service security measures.
The House did not support most of these proposed changes. The House-passed version of H.R.
5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill,
provided $139.6 billion, $1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request. The bill
generally reflected recommendations of the House Committee on Appropriations; the House did
approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2007 funding from $900 million to $1.1 billion, and
approved amendments increasing funding for several programs within the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The White House objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued a
veto threat against the bill if it included any provision easing sanctions on Cuba.4
H.R. 5576, as reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, also did not support most
of the changes proposed by the Administration. The committee recommended $141.2 billion (plus
$597 million for the District of Columbia in a separate bill), a total of $3.3 billion (2%) over the
4
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.
5576—Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007,
June 14, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
2
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Administration request. The committee recommended increases over the Administration request
for aviation, Amtrak, housing, the Internal Revenue Service, and drug control programs in the
Executive Office of the President. Among the provisions recommended by the committee was one
easing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba, similar to the provision that had drawn a veto
threat against the House-passed bill.
H.R. 5576 did not come to the Senate floor. A series of continuing resolutions kept most federal
agencies operating early in FY2007, culminating in passage of the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for 2007 (H.J.Res. 20/P.L. 110-5), which was passed by Congress on
February 14 and signed into law on February 15, 2007. This legislation provided funding for most
federal agencies for the remainder for FY2007, generally at the level provided to agencies in
FY2006, except where otherwise stated in the legislation. Among the agencies that received
increases over their FY2006 levels were DOT and HUD. The legislation also provides that the
“requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions” of the FY2006
appropriations acts would apply to the funding provided for FY2007, except where otherwise
stated in the bill.
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures
In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their
subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of
subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent
Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting
subcommittee, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several additional independent agencies was
added.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to 12. The Senate
also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Judiciary, to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies
subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee.
As a result, the area of coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over
this appropriations bill are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the
Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill.
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2007 Transportation et al. appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
3
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing
and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive
Office of the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
5/25/06
7/18/06
—
House
Report
—
House
Passage
H.Rept.
109-495
6/9/06
6/14/06
406-22
—
H.J.Res. 20
286-140
1/31/07
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conference
Report
Approval
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
S.Rept.
109-293
7/26/06
—
—
—
—
—
—
H.J.Res.
20
81-15
2/14/07
—
—
—
P.L.
110-5
2/15/07
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill (the last two titles cover
general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions affecting the entire federal
government) for FY2006 and the amount requested for that title for FY2007.
Table 2.Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2006-FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
Title I: Department of Transportation
$60,677
$64,432
$64,720
$65,028
$63,143
Title II: Department of the Treasury
11,552
11,606
11,522
11,706
11,624
Title III: Housing and Urban Development
33,594
34,118
35,309
36,588
36,626
Title IV: The Judiciary
5,720
6,260
6,063
6,098
5,980
Title V: District of Columbia
597
597
575
597
591
Title VI: Executive Office of the President
728
503
723
730
720
19,936
20,999
20,708
21,062
b
—
—
—
—
—
$137,623
$138,516
$139,620
$141,808
c
Title
Title VII: Independent Agencies
Title VIII-VIIII: General Provisions
Total
Source: Budget tables in H.Rept. 109-307 and 109-495 and S.Rept. 109-293; “FY2007 Enacted” is from budget
tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. No single table showing the enacted FY2007
figures for all these agencies is available, and so the “Total,” from the “Total budgetary resources” line in various
budget tables, was calculated by CRS. The Senate-reported bill did not include the District of Columbia
appropriation; that figure was added to the Senate total by CRS for comparative purposes. Totals may not add
due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments.
a.
The FY2006 figures represent the amounts enacted by the FY2006 Transportation/Treasury et al.
appropriations act (P.L. 109-115). The Defense appropriations act (P.L. 109-148) contained an across-theboard rescission of non-emergency spending of 1.0%, and DOT and HUD received emergency supplemental
funding for FY2006 to deal with the effects of several hurricanes; those changes are not reflected in these
figures.
Congressional Research Service
4
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
b.
No single table available from the House Appropriations Committee shows the enacted FY2007 total for
the Independent Agencies under the jurisdiction of the former TTHUD appropriations subcommittee.
c.
No single table available from the House Appropriations Committee shows the enacted FY2007 total for
the agencies under the jurisdiction of the former TTHUD appropriations subcommittee.
Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2002-FY2006, and the amounts
requested for FY2007, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally experienced funding
increases during the period FY2002-FY2006.
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2007
(billions of current dollars)
Department
FY2002
FY2003a
FY2004b
FY2005c
FY2006d
FY2007
Request
Title I: Transportatione
$57.4
$55.7
$58.4
$59.6
$60.7
$64.4
Title II: Treasuryf
10.5
10.8
11.1
11.2
11.7
11.6
Title III: Housing and Urban
Development
30.2
31.0
31.2
31.9
34.0
34.1
Title IV: Judiciary
4.7
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.8
6.3
Title V: District of Columbia
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
Title VI: Executive Office of the
President
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
Title VII: Independent Agencies
—
—
—
19.8
19.9
21.0
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of
Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Figures for 2006 do not reflect emergency
appropriations. Figures for 2007 are the Administration requested figures from table in H.Rept. 109-485.
a.
FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
b.
FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
c.
FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
d.
FY2006 figures are as enacted in the FY2006 appropriations act (P.L. 109-115) and do not reflect a 1.0%
across-the-board rescission or emergency supplemental funding provided for DOT and HUD. DOT and
HUD received emergency funding for response to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes; DOT’s total
FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $63.0 billion; HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including
emergency funding, was $45.5 billion.
e.
Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2002-FY2003 have been adjusted for
comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the Transportation
Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration.
f.
Figures for Department of the Treasury appropriations for FY2002-FY2003 have been adjusted for
comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the
Customs Service; the United States Secret Service; and the Law Enforcement Training Center.
Congressional Research Service
5
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Title I: Transportation Appropriations
Table 4.Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
$237
$174
$151
$242
$171
109
—
117
117
109
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
13,711
12,774
15,154
14,251
14,482
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
8,104
8,366
8,360
8,366
8,374
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,555
2,503
3,110
2,550
2,516
Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund)
(limit. on oblig.)
3,515
2,750
3,700
3,520
3,514
Research, Engineering & Development (trust
fund)
137
130
134
136
130
33,392
39,825
37,661c
38,324
36,252
35,672
39,086
39,086
39,086
39,086
739
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
2,750
—
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
19
—
—
40
20
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA)
490
517
517
517
517
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
806
815
822
807
821
1,511
1,085
1,085
1,585
1,478
1,294
900
900d
1,400
1,294
8,504
8,846
8,932
8,846
8,975
General Funds
1,594
1,583
1,670
1,583
1,712
Trust Funds
6,910
7,263
7,263
7,263
7,263
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
16
8
17
17
16
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
306
223
224
270
214
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
115
121
121
121
134
Pipeline safety program
72
76
76
76
75
Emergency preparedness grants
14
28
28
28
14
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration
6
8
6
8
8
Department or Agency
(Selected Accounts)
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Essential Air Serviceb
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Exempt Obligations)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Amtrak
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Congressional Research Service
6
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
Office of Inspector General
62
64
64
64
64
Surface Transportation Board
25
22
24
25
26
$62,316
$64,432
$64,720
$65,028
$63,143
Department or Agency
(Selected Accounts)
Total, Department of Transportation
Note: Figures are from the budget authority table in H.Rept. 109-495, except “FY2007 Enacted” figures are
from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. FY2007 figures do not
reflect floor amendments increasing or decreasing funding for different programs. Because of differing treatment
of offsets, the figures for “FY2007 Request” will not always match the Administration’s budget figures. The
figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions,
and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
a.
These figures reflect the 1.0% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447.
b.
The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to be funded
out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the program.
c.
The budget table in H.Rept. 109-495 gives a net total of $34. 411 billion for FHWA for FY2007in the bill,
but appears to double-count a $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority. The FHWA net total figure in
the text of the bill is $37.661billion (p. 29).
d.
Amtrak’s appropriation was increased to $1.2 billion by a floor amendment.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s budget proposed $64.4 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT). This
was $2.1 billion (3%) more than the $62.3 billion enacted for FY2006, including emergency
spending, and $4.3 billion (7%) more than the amount provided in the FY2006 appropriations act
(after then 1% rescission). The major funding changes requested from the FY2006 enacted levels
were an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) in the obligation limitation for highways, reflecting the
authorized level in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) as well as an increase due to higher-than-projected
Highway Trust Fund revenues; a decrease of $394 million (30%) in the request for Amtrak; and a
decrease of $765 million (22%) in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement
Program.
The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three agency-specific goals influencing the
budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety through increased funding
for safety programs, improving transportation mobility through investments in additional
infrastructure and through investments in technology to increase the effective capacity of the
transportation systems, and restraining spending and managing for results by, among other
initiatives, restructuring federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak, and
eliminating the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.5
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.7 billion for DOT, $287 million (less
than 1%) more than the Administration request and $2.4 billion (4%) above total FY2006
funding. The primary changes from the President’s request were additional funding for the
Federal Aviation Administration ($1.5 billion), bringing the Airport Improvement Program and
5
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
7
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Facilities and Equipment Program up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The committee
also recommended an increase of $100 million (7%) for the Federal Transit Administration’s
Capital Grants (New Starts) Program. The House supported the committee’s recommendations
regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to add another $214 million (24%)
for Amtrak (discussed below) and $6.7 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s Operations and Research Program, for the Office of Fuel Economy to study how
best to promote an increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) by the auto industry.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.0 billion for DOT. Compared to the
Administration request, the committee recommended increased funding for airport grants-in-aid,
for the Essential Air Services program, and for Amtrak; compared to the House bill, the
committee recommended increased funding for Amtrak and for DOT’s new headquarters building
but less funding for FAA’s facilities and equipment account and FTA’s New Starts program.
P.L. 110-5, the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, provided $63.1 billion in net budgetary resources
for DOT ($67.4 billion in appropriations, reduced by $4.2 billion in rescissions of contract
authority). This represented an increase of $3.7 billion (6%) over FY2006 appropriations,
excluding rescissions of contract authority in both years and $2.8 billion in emergency
appropriations in FY2006. The increases went largely to the federal-aid highway program and the
federal transit program, reflecting their FY2007 authorized funding levels.
Amtrak
Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and maintains rail infrastructure in the
Northeast and operates passenger rail service throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and
requires federal support to continue operations. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of
FY2002. Reauthorization efforts have been stalled by fundamental disagreements between
Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity passenger rail policy.
The Administration, which has appointed all the current members of the Amtrak Board of
Directors, has sought to force changes in intercity passenger rail policy over the past several years
by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is needed to maintain the status quo, arguing that
“only a constrained budget will force Amtrak to change the way it conducts business.”6 Congress
has responded by providing more funding for Amtrak than requested by the Administration, while
imposing conditions on Amtrak in the appropriations bills.
The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2007. The Administration’s
proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the Senate. The Administration has
asserted in the past that it would support increased funding for intercity passenger rail if
significant reforms are enacted. Some Members of Congress have questioned where that
additional money would come from, given the competing demands from other transportation
modes and from other agencies in the appropriations bill that funds DOT.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $900 million for grants to Amtrak for
FY2007. The committee also recommended a number of requirements for Amtrak, including that
Amtrak be required to submit a comprehensive business plan and a detailed plan for improving its
managerial cost accounting system; to cut system overhead expenses by 10% annually; and to
6
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
Congressional Research Service
8
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
achieve savings through operating efficiencies in its food and beverage service, and first class
service, resulting in these services breaking even by the end of FY2007.
In its consideration of H.R. 5576, the House approved (266-158) an amendment to increase
Amtrak’s FY2007 appropriation by $214 million, from $900 million to $1.114 billion. This was
$180 million less than the $1.294 billion Amtrak received in FY2006 (after the 1.0% across-theboard rescission), and significantly less than the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed
in FY2007.7 The funding was divided into two parts: $629 million for capital grants and debt
service, and $485 million for efficiency incentive grants. None of the funding would go directly
to Amtrak; Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive grants.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.4 billion for Amtrak. As with the
House, this funding was divided between capital grants and debt service ($750 million) and
efficiency incentive grants for operating costs; in both cases, Amtrak would apply to the Secretary
of DOT to receive funding. The committee asserted that this arrangement would provide
increased oversight of Amtrak. The committee also recommended several requirements for
Amtrak similar to the provisions in the House bill, such as requiring Amtrak to reduce the cost
deficits on its first-class service and food and beverage service. The committee also included a
provision forbidding Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries, and one creating a pilot
program to see if a state can operate passenger rail service at lower cost than Amtrak does now.
The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $1.3 billion for Amtrak, the same
amount provided in FY2006. The text of P.L. 110-5 provided that the requirements and
limitations imposed on Amtrak in its FY2006 appropriations legislation would continue to apply
throughout FY2007.
Aviation
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) budget provides both capital and operating funding
for the nation’s air traffic control system, as well as providing federal grants to airports for airport
planning, development, and expansion of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The
President’s budget requested $12.8 billion in net funding for FY2007, $937 million less than was
enacted for FY2006. The President’s request included $18 million to hire 1,136 air traffic
controllers in FY2007. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 132 controllers after
retirements expected in FY2007.
The House Committee recommended $15.2 billion for FY2007, $1.4 billion over the level
enacted for FY2006 and $2.4 billion over the Administration request. The increases brought the
FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The House supported this
recommendation.
The House also adopted, 291-137, an amendment restricting foreign control over the business
decisions of U.S. airlines. The DOT had proposed a rule whose stated purpose was to promote
7
Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation,
“Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March
16, 2006, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
9
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
foreign investment in U.S. airlines. 8 In response to concerns raised about the implications of this
proposed rule for national security, the House adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any
funds provided in the FY2007 appropriations bill to finalize or implement the proposed rule. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended a similar provision. The DOT
subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment to the rule that would have increased the
allowed degree of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines. 9
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.2 billion for FY2007. The
committee recommended more funding that the Administration requested, but less funding than
the House provided; significant differences compared with the House levels were for the
Facilities and Equipment account ($2.55 billion to the House’s $3.11 billion) and the Airport
Improvement Program ($3.52 billion to the House’s $3.7 billion).
The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $14.5 billion in net funding for the
Federal Aviation Administration for FY2007. This was $1.7 billion (13%) more than the
Administration requested and $770 million (6%) more than enacted for FY2006.
Airport Improvement Program
The President’s budget proposed a cut to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5
billion in FY2006 to $2.8 billion for FY2007. The House provided $3.7 billion, the FY2007
authorized level; the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.5 billion. As a result
of P.L. 110-5, the AIP received $3.5 billion, the same amount as in FY2006.
AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and for projects to
increase airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other facility improvements. Some
Members of Congress have expressed concern at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of
forecasts of renewed growth in aviation traffic.
Essential Air Service
The President’s budget proposed a $59 million (54%) reduction in funding for the Essential Air
Service program, from $109 million (FY2006) to $50 million. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended $117 million. The House-passed bill provided $117 million. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended $117 million. As a result of P.L. 110-5,
the program received $109 million, the same amount as in FY2006.
This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities by subsidizing
the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service program contend that preserving
airline service to rural communities was part of the deal Congress made in exchange for
deregulating airline service in 1978, which was expected to reduce air service to rural areas.
Some Members of Congress expressed concern that the proposed cut in funding for the Essential
Air Service program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural
8
Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389);
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re
dacted).
9
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.
Congressional Research Service
10
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
communities. Previous budget requests from the Current Administration, as well as budget
requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.
Surface Transportation
The President’s budget requested $39.8 billion for federal highway programs for FY2007, an
increase of $3.5 billion (10%) over the comparable level of $36.3 billion provided in FY2006.10
The budget also requested $8.8 billion for federal transit programs for FY2007, an increase of
$342 million (4%) over the $8.5 billion provided in FY2006. These increases reflected the
authorized level of funding provided (and “guaranteed”) for surface transportation programs by
SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59), except that the request was $100 million less than the authorized level
for transit. The authorized level of FY2007 highway funding included an increase of $842 million
as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment provided
for in SAFETEA known as Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA.
The House approved the requested (authorized) level for highway programs—$37.0 billion11—
and added $100 million to the Capital Grants (New Starts) transit program to bring the transit
funding up to its authorized level of $8.9 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended the same level for federal highway programs and the requested level for transit
programs (thus, $100 million less than the House provided). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution
(P.L. 110-5) provided $39.8 billion for the federal highway program and $9.0 billion for the
federal transit program for FY2007. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded $3.5 billion from unobligated
balances of previously provided contract authority for federal highway programs, resulting in a
net FY2007 level of $36.3 billion for the federal highway program.
The Administration requested $517 million (a 6% increase) for the Federal Motor Carrier
Administration (FMCSA) and $815 million (a 1% increase) for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the
requested level for FMCSA and recommended an additional $6 million to the amount requested
for NHTSA. The House concurred with these recommendations. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations also recommended the requested level for FMCSA and $8 million less than
requested for NHTSA. FMCSA received $517 million and NHTSA received $821 million for
FY2007 as a result of P.L. 110-5.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Administration requested $299 million for the Maritime Administration for FY2007, $7
million (2%) below the $306 million enacted for FY2006. As in its FY2006 budget, the
Administration did not request any new funding for National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction
Program, and requested that $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for this program be
rescinded (bringing its net request down to $223 million, assuming this rescission). The House
provided $300 million, and supported the request to rescind the $74 million for the National
Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program. That rescission, plus a $2 million rescission of
10
In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in
FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes.
11
$39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract
authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion.
Congressional Research Service
11
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
administrative expenses for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, brought the net total funding
down to $224 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for MARAD, significantly
above the request and the House level. The additional funding was for subsidies for the Title IX
loan program ($30 million) and a new program to assist small shipyards ($15 million). The
committee also recommended the requested $74 million rescission for the National Defense
Tanker Vessel Construction Program (thus bringing the net total funding to $270 million). The
FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $291 million for MARAD. P.L. 110-5 also
rescinded the $74 million in the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program, and
rescinded $2 million from MARAD’s ship construction account, resulting in a net FY2007
appropriation of $214 million.
The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program is intended to decrease the
Department of Defense’s reliance on foreign-flag oil tankers by supporting the construction of up
to five privately-owned product-tanker vessels in the United States. It would provide up to $50
million per vessel for the construction, in U.S. shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are
capable of carrying militarily useful petroleum products and that would be available for the
military’s use in time of war.
Title II: Department of the Treasury
Table 5.Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
Senate
Committee
Recommendation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
$195
$224
$224
$224
$216
Department-wide Systems
and Capital Investments
24
34
34
34
30
Office of Inspector General
17
17
17
18
17
Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration
132
136
136
136
133
Air Transportation
Stabilization Program
3
—
—
—
—
Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund
55
8
40
55
55
Treasury Building and Annex
Repair and Restoration
10
—
—
—
—
Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network
73
90
84
77
73
Financial Management
Service
234
234
234
234
235
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau
90
64
93
93
91
Program or Account
Departmental Offices
Congressional Research Service
12
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2007
Senate
Committee
Recommendation
FY2007
Enacted
Program or Account
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
Bureau of the Public Debt
175
178
178
178
176
Internal Revenue Service,
Total
10,545b
10,592
10,487
10,656
10,597
4,095
4,045
—
—
—
—
—
2,059
2,110
2,138
4,678
4,762
—
—
—
—
—
4,757
4,797
4,686
Information Systems
1,583
1,602
—
—
—
Operations Support
—
—
3,459
3,487
3,545
Business Systems
Modernization
197
167
197
245
213
Health Insurance Tax
Credit Administration
20
15
15
15
15
Rescission
(29)
—
—
—
—
$11,581b
$11,606
$11,528
$11,706
$11,624
Processing, Assistance and
Management
Taxpayer Services
Tax Law Enforcement
Enforcement
Total Appropriations,
Dept. of the Treasury
Source: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except
Senate Committee figures are from a budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of differing treatment of offsets,
the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from
those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not
add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
a.
FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1%.
b.
Excludes a rescission of $29 million for the IRS account.
This section examines FY2007 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating
bureaus. FY2007 appropriations for the largest operating bureau, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), are examined in the following section.
The Treasury Department performs a variety of governmental functions. Foremost among them
are protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit activities (e.g., money
laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing and
accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government’s finances, regulating financial
institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices and operating
bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and implementing policy
initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the bureaus perform specific duties
assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus
have accounted for more than 95% of the agency’s funding and work force.
With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in financial
management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In recent decades, the
Congressional Research Service
13
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial
Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Public Debt, Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift Supervision have undertaken tasks related to the
management of the federal government’s finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S.
financial system. By contrast, law enforcement has been the central focus of the tasks handled by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); and
the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002,
Treasury’s direct involvement in law enforcement has shrunk considerably. The possible
exception to this simplified dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties
encompass both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue Service)
Funding for many bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations. Such is the case for the
IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Office
of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and
the CDFI. But there are some exceptions to this heavy reliance on appropriated funds. The
Treasury Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision finance their operations largely from the
fees they charge for services and products they provide.
In FY2007, Treasury is receiving $11.624 billion in appropriated funds, or 0.4% more than it
received in FY2006, after allowing for a rescission of 1%. Most of these funds are being used to
finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $10.597 billion in FY2007. The remaining
$1.027 billion is distributed among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices in the
following amounts: Departmental offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence—or TFI—and the Office of Foreign Assets Control) is receiving $216 million;
Department-wide systems and capital investments, $30 million; OIG, $17 million; TIGTA, $133
million; CDFI, $55 million; FinCEN, $73 million; FMS, $235 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (ATB), $91 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $176 million.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
To help finance its operations and multitude of spending programs, the federal government levies
individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes,
customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible for
administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). In discharging this responsibility, the IRS receives and processes tax
returns, related documents, and tax payments; disburses refunds; enforces compliance through
audits and other procedures; collects delinquent taxes; and provides a host of services to
taxpayers with the aim of enabling them to understand their rights and responsibilities under the
federal tax code and resolving problems without litigation. In FY2006, the agency collected
$2.537 trillion before refunds, the largest component of which was individual income tax revenue
of $1.236 trillion.
The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated funds, user fees, and
so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives from other federal agencies and
Congressional Research Service
14
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
state governments for services it provides. In FY2006, appropriated funds accounted for 98% of
IRS’s operating budget, with user fees and reimbursables each adding another 1%.
Starting in FY2007, appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts:
•
(1) taxpayer services, which provides resources for pre-filing taxpayer
assistance, filing and account services, administrative services for IRS
employees, and senior IRS management;
•
(2) enforcement, which covers the cost of compliance services, research and
statistical analysis, and administration of the earned income tax credit;
•
(3) operations support, which addresses the improvement and maintenance of
the agency’s information and management systems;
•
(4) business systems modernization (or BSM), which provides funds for
developing new information systems for tax administration and acquiring the
hardware and software needed to integrate them into IRS’s operations;
•
and (5) health insurance tax credit administration, which covers the cost of
administering the refundable tax credit for health insurance established by the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
In FY2007, the IRS is receiving $10.597 billion in appropriated funds—or 0.5% more than it
received in FY2006. Of this amount, $2.138 billion is designated for taxpayer services, $4.686 for
enforcement, $3.545 for operations support, $213 million for the BSM program, and $15 million
for administration of the health insurance tax credit. The IRS is one of the many federal agencies
being funded in FY2007 under a year-long continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 20) enacted in
February 2007. Under the resolution, the “requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and
other provisions” that governed the use of FY2006 appropriations by all affected agencies are
also to govern their use of FY2007 appropriations. As a result, certain restrictions that applied to
funding for IRS operations in FY2006 also apply to the funding for IRS operations in FY2007.
Specifically, the IRS may not reorganize or reduce its workforce in FY2007 without the consent
of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, during FY2007, the IRS is
barred from entering the market for tax return preparation software, and from instituting
reductions in taxpayer service until TIGTA completes a report on the effects of such reductions on
taxpayer compliance.
Congressional Research Service
15
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Table 6.Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2006 to
FY2007
(budget authority in $ billions)
Program
FY2006
enacted
FY2007
request
FY2007
House
FY2007
S. Com.
FY2007
enacteda
Appropriations
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (includes
advanced appropriation) (Sec. 8)
$15.418
$15.920
$15.846
$15.920
$15.920b
Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8)
5.037
5.676
5.476
5.676
5.976b
Sec. 8 supplementalc
0.390
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.460
2.439
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.178
2.208d
Public housing operating fund
3.564
3.564
3.564
3.660
3.864b
HOPE VI
0.099e
0.000c
0.000d
0.100
0.099
Native American housing block grants
0.624
0.626
0.626
0.626
0.624
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.006
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.009b
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
0.286
0.300
0.300
0.295
0.286
Rural Housing Economic Development
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.017
Community Development Fund
(Including CDBG)f
4.178
3.032
4.215g
4.215
3.772b
CDF supplementalc
16.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Section 108 Loan Guarantees
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.000
0.010
Brownfields redevelopment
0.010
0.000
0.000g
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.757
1.917
1.917
1.942
1.757
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.327
1.536h
1.536
1.511
1.442b
Self-help Homeownership
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.066
0.049b
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.545
0.747
0.750
0.735
Housing for the disabled
0.237
0.119
0.240
0.240
0.237
Housing Counseling Assistancei
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rental Housing Assistance
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.026
Research and technology
0.056
0.068
0.056
0.060
0.050b
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.046
Office, lead hazard control
0.150
0.115
0.150
0.152
0.150
0.573
0.590j
0.493j
0.594j
0.581k
Salaries and expenses
Congressional Research Service
16
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Program
FY2006
enacted
FY2007
request
FY2007
House
FY2007
S. Com.
FY2007
enacteda
Working capital fund
0.195
0.220
0.000l
0.220
0.195
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundm
0.013
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.013
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversightm
0.060
0.062
0.062
0.068
0.060
FHA Expensesm
0.727
0.734
0.714
0.724
0.722n
GNMA Expensesm
0.011
0.061q
0.011
0.011
0.011
Inspector General
0.081
0.083
0.083
0.091
0.082k
Appropriations Subtotal without
supplemental
37.743
37.527
38.405
39.504
39.182
Appropriations Subtotal with
supplemental
49.633
37.527
38.405
39.504
39.182
Sec. 8 recaptures (rescission)o
-2.050
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-1.650b
HOPE VI rescission
0.000
-0.099
0.000
0.000
0.000
Brownfields redevelopment rescission
-0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Economic Development Initiative
Rescission
0.000
-0.356p
0.000
0.000
0.000
-2.060
-2.455
-2.000
-2.000
-1.650
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund
-0.013
-0.016
-0.016
-0.016
-0.013
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight
-0.060
-0.062
-0.062
-0.068
-0.060
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
-1.648
-0.652
-0.849
-0.652
-0.652
GNMA
-0.368
-0.224q
-0.181
-0.181
-0.181
-2.089
-0.954
-1.108
-0.917
-0.906
Total before supplementals
$33.594
$34.118
$35.297
$36.588
$36.626
Total with supplementals
$50.684
$34.118
$35.297
$36.588
$36.626
Rescissions
Rescissions Subtotal
Offsetting Collections and Receipts
Offsets Subtotal
Source: Prepared by CRS based on H.R. 5576, H.Rept. 109-495, S.Rept. 109-293, P.L. 110-5, and tables
provided by the Appropriations Committee. FY2006 figures are adjusted to reflect the 1% across-the-board
rescission enacted in P.L. 109-148. Figures for FY2006 enacted and FY2007 request contained in earlier versions
of this table were based on CRS estimates, which have since been replaced with House Appropriations
Committee estimates.
a.
The FY2007 year-long continuing resolution funded most accounts at their FY2006 enacted level; however,
the CR specified higher or lower funding levels for some HUD accounts.
b.
The CR included a specific amount for this account, which differed from the FY2006 enacted level.
c.
P.L. 109-148 provided emergency supplemental hurricane recovery funds, including $390 million for the
Section 8 voucher program and $11.5 billion for CDBG. An additional $5.2 billion for CDBG was included
in P.L. 109-234. These special purpose funds were not a part of the regular FY2006 appropriations law (P.L.
109-115).
d.
A floor amendment added $30 million to the Public Housing Capital Fund. Floor statements indicated that
the funding was intended for the HOPE VI program; however, no language was included in the bill directing
that the funds be used for HOPE VI.
Congressional Research Service
17
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
e.
The President’s FY2007 budget requested that Congress rescind the $99 million it provided for the HOPE
VI program in FY2006.
f.
The Community Development Fund account funds the CDBG program and other related community
development programs. CDBG accounts for the largest portion of the CDF account.
g.
A floor amendment added $15 million to the Community Development Fund. Floor statements indicated
that the funds were to be used for Brownfields.
h.
The President’s request included $25 million that would be transferred to the Department of Labor.
i.
This program is typically funded as a set-aside within the HOME program. In FY2006, it was funded at $42
million within the HOME account. In recent years, including FY2007, the President’s budget has requested
that the program be funded separately from HOME. The House, Senate, and final enacted versions of the
FY2007 funding bill continued to fund Housing Counseling as a set-aside within the HOME account at $42
million.
j.
The President’s request assumed $4 million in savings from a legislative proposal. Neither the House-passed
bill, the Senate committee-passed bill, or the final enacted bill assumed such savings.
k.
The CR appropriated such sums as may be necessary to fund 50% of the cost of the statutory cost-of-living
salary increase approved for FY2007. This provision affected the HUD salaries and expenses account as well
as the Inspector General’s account. The amount shown here may change if estimates of the cost of this
provision change.
l.
The House Appropriations Committee-passed version included $100 million for the Working Capital Fund.
A floor amendment decreased the account by $100 million to offset a $70 million increase in funding for
tenant-based rental assistance.
m. The administrative costs of these programs are generally paid by offsetting receipts collected by the
program. In some cases, the administrative costs are fully offset by collected fees; in others, they are
partially offset, and in others, the offsetting receipts are larger than the administrative costs, and the excess
are used to offset the total cost of the HUD budget. See the offsetting receipts portion of Table 6.
n.
Each year, the Congressional Budget Office makes an estimate of how much additional, authorized contract
authority FHA will use. In FY2006, CBO estimated HUD would use $5 million in additional contract
authority. The CR did not include that $5 million in additional contract expenses.
o.
Each year, unobligated balances are recaptured from the Housing Certificate Fund, an account that
previously funded the tenant-based and project-based Section 8 rental assistance programs, and which still
contains long-term Section 8 contracts funded in prior years.
p.
The President’s FY2007 budget requested that Congress rescind the full amount it provided in FY2006 for
Economic Development Initiative and Neighborhood Initiative earmarks within the CDF account.
q.
The President’s budget documents indicate that a new GNMA proposal would cost $43 million, but its
costs would be offset by an additional $43 million in offsetting receipts. The House, Senate, and final
enacted bills did not include that assumption.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key
Policy Issues12
The President’s FY2007 budget proposed to fund the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) at approximately $34.1 billion, just over HUD’s $33.6 billion budget for
FY2006 (not including FY2006 supplementals related to Hurricane Katrina). Although the overall
request appeared to be an increase, the amount requested actually would have resulted in a slight
decrease, with a number of HUD programs slated for funding cuts. This seeming contradiction
resulted from a decrease in the amount of offsetting receipts available to subsidize the HUD
12
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
18
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
budget. As can be seen in Table 6, appropriations would have declined by more than $200 million
and offsetting receipts would have declined by more than $1 billion under the President’s request.
On June 14, 2006, the House passed its version of the FY2007 Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent
Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576), which would have provided $35.3 billion
for HUD. Floor amendments that would have increased funding for Section 8 vouchers, leadbased paint hazard control, HOPE VI, supportive housing for the elderly, and Brownfields
redevelopment were added to the bill. On July 27, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved its version of H.R. 5576, which would have provided $36.6 billion for HUD.
Congress did not enact the majority of FY2007 appropriations bills before the end of the 2006
fiscal year. In order to fund government operations until final appropriations bills were enacted,
Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, P.L. 109-383)
which funded HUD programs at the lower of the House-passed or FY2006 enacted funding level.
On February 15, 2007, President Bush signed a revised year-long continuing resolution into law
(P.L. 110-5). With some exceptions, the act funds accounts at their FY2006 levels. (For more
details on the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2007 Budget, by (name redacted) et al.)
Community Development Fund and related programs
The Community Development Fund (CDF) funds the Community Development Block Grant
program (CDBG) and the Economic Development and Neighborhood Initiatives (EDI and NI).
CDBG provides formula grant funding to states and localities to be used for community
development-related purposes; EDIs and NIs are collections of congressionally directed projects.
The CDBG formula grant would have been funded at just under $3 billion in the Administration’s
budget for FY2007, compared to $3.7 billion in FY2006. The President proposed no new funding
for EDIs and NIs, and requested that Congress rescind the funds provided in FY2006. The
FY2007 budget would also have eliminated funding for several other community developmentrelated programs, including Brownfields redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural
Housing and Economic Development.
The House-passed bill, H.R. 5576, included about $4.2 billion for the Community Development
Fund, $1.2 billion more than the Administration request. The funding level recommended by the
House included about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $57.4 million for Indian
tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $20 million for
Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. Although the bill as reported would have provided no funding
for the Brownfields Redevelopment program or Section 108 loan guarantees, funding for both
programs was provided through floor amendments ($3 million for Section 108 and $15 million
for Brownfields). No funding was included for Rural Housing and Economic Development.
The Senate committee-passed version of H.R. 5576 would have provided the same level of
funding for the Community Development Fund as the House-passed bill, about $4.2 billion. The
Senate committee recommended about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $58 million
for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $30 million
for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. The Rural Housing and Economic Development program
would have been funded at $20 million and Section 108 loan guarantees would have received $3
million under the Senate committee-passed bill. No funding was provided for the Brownfields
Redevelopment program.
Congressional Research Service
19
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
The CR provided almost $3.8 billion for the Community Development Fund, a decrease from the
FY2006 funding level of $4.2 billion. The CDBG formula program is funded at just over $3.7
billion, about equal to the amount provided in FY2006. Funding is also provided for the Rural
Housing and Economic Development program ($16.8 million), the Section 108 loan guarantees
program ($3.7 million), and the Brownfields Redevelopment program ($9.9 million). No funds
were provided for Economic Development Initiative or Neighborhood Initiative congressionally
designated projects.
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled
The Administration’s budget proposed to reduce funding for the Section 202 housing for the
elderly program from $734.6 million in FY2006 to $545.5 million in FY2007, a cut of almost
26%. However, the House-passed bill would have funded the program at approximately $746.6
million, about $12 million more than FY2006.13 The Senate committee-passed bill recommended
$750 million for Section 202. The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L.
110-5) did not specify a funding level for elderly housing, which therefore received its FY2006
level of $734.6 million for FY2007.
For the second year in a row, the Administration’s budget proposed to halve funding for the
Section 811 housing for the disabled program, to $118.8 million from $236.6 million in FY2006.
As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would have increased funding to nearly $240 million. 14 The
Senate committee-passed bill would have provided $240 million for Section 811. Under the yearlong CR, Section 811 is funded at the FY2006 level of $236.6 million for FY2007.
Public Housing/HOPE VI
Funding for the federal public housing program comes through three main programs: the
Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, and the HOPE VI program. The first two are formula grant
programs, the former to cover the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and operation of public
housing and the latter to cover major modernization costs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant
program that funds large scale revitalization of public housing.
The President proposed $3.5 billion for the Operating Fund in FY2007 (level with FY2006) and
almost $2.2 billion for the public housing Capital Fund (an 11% reduction from FY2006). As in
FY2006, the President asked Congress to provide no new money for the HOPE VI program for
FY2007, and to rescind the funding that Congress provided in the previous year before the
Department awarded it to grantees. The House Appropriations committee-reported bill would
have funded all three programs at the President’s request. A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1016)
offered by Representative Artur Davis would have added $30 million to the Capital Fund,
although his floor statements indicated it was intended for the HOPE VI program. The Housepassed version of the FY2007 funding bill would not have rescinded FY2006 HOPE VI funds.
The Senate committee-passed bill would have funded the Operating Fund at $3.6 billion, the
Capital Fund at $2.4 billion (both increases over FY2006) and would have funded HOPE VI at
13
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation,
“Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March
16, 2006, p. 1.
14
Congressional Research Service
20
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
$100 million. It would not have rescinded FY2006 funding. The CR did not contain a specific
funding level for the Capital Fund or HOPE VI, and so the accounts are funded at the FY2006
levels. The CR funded the Operating Fund at $3.8 million, a $300 million increase over the
FY2006 level.
Title IV: The Judiciary
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who
transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2006 enacted amount, the FY2007
request, the House-passed amount, the Senate committee-approved amount, and the FY2007
enacted amount.
Table 7.Title IV:The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
$63.4
$63.4
$62.6
13.0
13.0
13.0
11.4
65.7
76.4
76.4
76.4
74.0
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
23.8
26.3
26.0
25.3
25.3
U.S. Court of International Trade
15.3
16.2
16.2
16.2
15.8
4,330.2
4,691.2
4,560.1
4,587.3
4,480.5
Court Security
368.3
410.3
400.3
397.7
378.7
Defender Services
709.8
803.9
750.0
761.1
776.3
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
60.7
63.1
63.1
63.1
60.9
5,469.0
5,968.5
5,773.5
5,809.3
5,696.4
Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts
69.6
75.3
73.8
74.3
72.4
Federal Judicial Center
22.1
23.8
23.5
23.4
22.9
United States Sentencing Commission
14.3
15.7
15.5
15.3
14.6
Judicial Retirement Funds
40.6
58.3
58.3
58.3
58.3
$5,720.3
$6,260.5
$6,063.2
$6,098.4
$5,979.7
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
Salaries and Expenses
$60.1
$63.4
Building and Grounds
5.6
Subtotal
Budget Groupings an Accounts
FY2007
House
Supreme Court
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Salaries and Expensesa
Subtotal
Total
Source: Data were provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the House Appropriations
Committee (Congressional Record, June 14, 2006, pp. H3969-H3970), and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293) accompanying H.R. 5576. The FY2006 enacted amount includes a 1%
across-the-board government-wide rescission and the supplemental $18 million contained in P.L. 109-148. The
Congressional Research Service
21
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2007 enacted amount was provided by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government. Subparts may not add up to totals due to rounding.
a.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (about $4 million) is included in the Salaries and Expenses
account.
As Table 7 shows, while the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5)
provided the same level of funding to agencies in FY2007 as they received in FY2006, unless
otherwise provided in the resolution, the judiciary was one of the entities that received an increase
over its FY2006 level. The FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary would essentially maintain
current on-board staffing levels and address the immigration-related caseload.
In his January 11, 2007, letters to the Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders
in both the House and the Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., expressed his concern about
a possible year-long continuing resolution. The Chief Justice stated that funding at the FY2006
level for FY2007 would have “a severe impact on court operations, our judicial system, and
potentially all U.S. citizens.” Specifically, he cited the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s
calculations that “almost 2,400 probation and pretrial services officers and clerks’ offices staff
currently employed by the courts would be lost. This reduction of almost 12 percent of the courts’
staff would have to be accomplished through hiring freezes, furloughs and ultimately the firing of
these dedicated employees.” He emphasized that public safety would be at risk because the
appropriate level of supervision would not be available for felons released from prison and for
defendants during the pretrial stage. He also expressed concern that there would be no funds to
pay court-appointed private attorneys for the last 10 weeks of FY2007 to ensure the timely
disposition of criminal cases.
In his letter, the Chief Justice requested that the Judiciary not be subject to a budget freeze, and
revised the FY2007 judiciary budget request to $6.029 billion. This was $231 million (or 3.7%)
less than the original request of $6.260 billion, but $309 million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006
enacted amount of $5.720 billion. He stated that the revised amount would be needed for the
federal courts to fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Subsequently, Congress approved $5.98 billion in FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary (P.L.
110-5). The FY2007 enacted amount is 4.5% more than the FY2006 appropriation of $5.72
billion.
In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,15 released on January 1, 2006, Chief
Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., highlighted appropriations issues and their importance in maintaining
an independent judiciary that can fulfill its mission. The Chief Justice expressed concern about
the high cost of rent the judiciary pays to the General Services Administration (GSA), and asked
Congress for rent relief. The rent now constitutes about 20% of the total judiciary budget. In early
2006, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate which would direct GSA to
establish rental fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating and maintaining the space
it provides the judiciary. On February 8, 2006, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (for himself and Representative Lamar S. Smith)
introduced H.R. 4710, the “Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006,” which was referred to the House
15
Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389);
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re
dacted).
Congressional Research Service
22
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Judiciary Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management). On February 15, 2006, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Arlen Specter (for himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy, John Cornyn, Saxby
Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James M. Talent, Daniel K. Inouye, Richard
M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard) introduced S. 2292, a similar measure, which was referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006, the Senate committee reported S. 2292, and the
bill was placed on the Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on H.R. 4710 or S. 2292 prior
to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
Chief Justice Roberts also expressed concern that judicial pay has not kept pace with inflation
over the years, and attributed increasing numbers of judges leaving the bench to this pay issue.
On February 10, 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein (for herself, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, and
Senator John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276, the “Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2006,” to
increase federal judges’ salaries by 16.5%. In addition, S. 2276 would end the current linkage
between congressional and judicial salaries, which has prevented increases in judicial salaries
when Congress foregoes annual cost of living increases for its Members. S. 2276 was referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B. Schiff (for himself
and Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014, the “Federal Judicial Fairness Act,” a
companion bill to S. 2276, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further
action was taken on S. 2276 or H.R. 5014 prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
Judicial security—the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges in courtrooms
and off-site—continues to be an issue of concern. The Chief Justice noted that the violence
directed at judges in 2005 had shocked the nation, and that “we must take every step to ensure
that our own judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never face
violent attack for carrying out their duties.”
Appropriations for the judiciary—about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget—
are divided into budget groups and accounts. The two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (the
salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court and the expenditures for the care of its building and
grounds) together make up about 1.2% of the total judiciary budget. The structural and
mechanical care of the Supreme Court building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of
the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower”
federal courts and for related judicial services. The largest account, about 75% of the total
budget—the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and
Other Judicial Services—covers the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the
territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges,
and all other officers and employees of the federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other
accounts; and the necessary expenses of the courts. The judiciary budget does not fund three
“special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Federal courthouse
construction also is not funded within the judiciary’s budget.
FY2007 Request and Appropriation
For FY2007, the judiciary requested $6.26 billion in total appropriations, a 9.4% increase over the
$5.72 billion enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 budget request includes funding for 33,631 fulltime-equivalent (FTE) positions—an increase of 417 FTEs or 1.3% above the FY2006 estimate of
Congressional Research Service
23
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
33,214 FTEs. The requested additional positions were a continuation of efforts to restore some
positions lost in previous years as well as to provide for expected workload increases. Of the total
budget request increase of $540.1 million, $461.8 million (86%) would have funded pay
adjustments and other inflation-related increases needed to maintain current services. The
remaining $78.3 million (14%) of the $540.1 million increase was for expected workload changes
and program enhancements. TheFY2007 enacted amount (P.L. 110-5) was $5.98 billion, a 4.5%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
House Action
On April 4, 2006, the House Appropriations TTHUD Subcommittee held a hearing on the
Supreme Court budget request for FY2007, and heard testimony from Supreme Court Justices
Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Another hearing was held the following day to hear
testimony on the overall judiciary budget request from Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, United States
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Chair of the Budget Committee of the
Judicial Conference of the United States, and then-Director of the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts (AOUSC) Leonidas R. Mecham. Among issues raised at the hearings were judicial
pay, televising the Supreme Court proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court building
modernization project, and workload.
On May 26, 2006, the subcommittee held a markup on the bill and approved a total of $6.1 billion
for the judiciary. By voice vote, on June 6, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee approved
the recommended $6.1 billion funding level—a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over the FY2006
level, but $197.3 million (3.2%) less than the FY2007 request. Three days later, on June 9, 2006,
the committee reported H.R. 5576. On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 to provide the
judiciary with the same level of funding the committee had approved.
The House committee expressed concern over the judiciary’s practice of including “one-time
windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year carryover funds in the FY2007 funding base,”
and urged the judiciary to discontinue the practice in developing its FY2008 budget submission.
Senate Action
On July 18, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies held a markup on the bill, and
approved a total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. Two days later, on July 20, 2006, the Senate
Appropriations Committee held a markup, and approved the $6.1 billion funding level—a $378
million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2007
request. In the committee report, the committee expressed its concerns about several issues;
among them are the following:
•
Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference make the
retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also expressed concern about
workload and staffing needs of the district courts along the U.S. southwest
border, resulting from increased immigration funding law enforcement activities.
It directed AOUSC to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial plan) for
positions that would be funded for magistrate judges and staff, and to keep the
committee apprised as the positions are filled. It also directed AOUSC to
examine staffing formulas to ensure that they reflect changing trends, and report
to Congress
Congressional Research Service
24
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
•
Courthouse construction. Noting that the self-imposed courthouse construction
moratorium would end in September 2006, the committee urged the judiciary to
carefully weigh its space needs with concerns about the rent it pays to GSA. It
also called for adequate checks and balances to ensure that future construction
needs and requests are “subjected to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness.”
It directed AOUSC to report to the committee, no later than 120 days after
enactment of this bill, on the steps that have been and are being taken for more
efficient use of space in the district and circuit courts. Further, it encouraged the
judiciary to continue working with GSA on fair and accurate rent charges, and
also to correct any inequities.
•
Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be used to meet
current and projected needs before enhancing any program. The AOUSC is to
submit separately in future financial plans, for House and Senate appropriations
committees’ approval, all sources of carryover funds and their desired
application.
Following are highlights of the FY2007 judiciary budget:
Supreme Court
For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries and expenses plus buildings and
grounds) was $76.4 million, a 16.2% increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $65.7 million.
The total request comprised two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses—$63.4 million was
requested, compared with the FY2006 enacted amount of $60.1 million; and (2) Care of the
Building and Grounds—$13.0 million was requested, compared with $5.6 million enacted for
FY2006. Most of the requested increase in salaries and expenses was to fund increases in salary
and benefit costs, inflationary fixed costs, and five new positions. The Buildings and Grounds
account request increased by $7.4 million (132.7%), including funds for the Supreme Court
Building roofing system repairs, maintenance of the building, and grounds operations, and
continuation of the building modernization project. The House approved the full amount
requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007
enacted amount for this account was $74.0 million, a 12.6% increase over the FY2006
appropriation.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The FY2007 request for this account was $26.3 million—a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the
$23.8 million appropriated for FY2006. The request provided for pay and other inflationary
adjustments, increased health benefit costs, and increased rental costs related to space for senior
judges. The requested increase also included $926,000 for information technology upgrades,
infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery plan, and the implementation of courtroom
technology in two of this circuit’s three courtrooms. The House approved $26.0 million for this
account—a $2.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007
request. The Senate committee recommended $25.3 million—a $1.5 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was
$25.3 million, a 6.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
25
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
U.S. Court of International Trade
The FY2007 request was for $16.2 million—a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $15.3 million that the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely to increases
in pay and benefits. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate
committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $15.8 million, a 3.3%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial courts located in
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Making up
about 95% of the judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group—salaries and expenses, court
security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners—fund most of the day-to-day
activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts.
Salaries and Expenses
The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request for this budget group16 was $4,691.2 million—a
$361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the
budget request, about 99% of this increase was required for pay increases and other adjustments
needed to maintain the courts’ current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase
requested, $106.7 million was requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court personnel.
Another $46.9 million of the increase was for increased rent to GSA and related costs, such as
equipment. 17 In addition, $42.6 million was requested for the Judiciary Technology Fund to
support existing and newly installed information technology systems, and to continue the
implementation of new information systems. Another increase of $22.1 million was to fund 257
FTEs—additional support staff needed to address the courts’ anticipated workload increase during
the year (as a result of an expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the
southwest border with Mexico).18 Finally, according to the judiciary budget request, to maintain
the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase was needed in this
account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds from fee collections and
carryover funds from previous years. In addition to appropriated funds, this account receives
other funds, including current year fee collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year,
and no-year appropriation balances. In FY2007, these non-appropriated funds were projected to
total $285.9 million. The House approved $4,560.1 million for this account—a $229.9 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate
committee recommended $4,587.3 million—a $257.1 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$103.9 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $4,480.5 million,
a 3.5% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
16
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.
In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in
FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes.
18
$39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract
authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion.
17
Congressional Research Service
26
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Court Security
This account provides for protective guard services, security systems, and equipment for
courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety of judicial officers, employees, and
visitors. Under this account, a major portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal
Service for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program to pay for court security officers.
The FY2007 request was $410.3 million—a $42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $368.3 million. This increase was reportedly driven by pay and benefit
adjustments and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The increase would also
cover the costs for 34 additional court security officers expected to be needed during FY2007.
Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is also covered under this account. The FY2007
request for FPS was $67.9 million—a $7.4 million increase over the FY2006 appropriation of
$60.5 million. In addition, $16.8 million was requested for security systems, perimeter (outside
the building) security, and equipment for court security and for probation and pretrial service
offices. An additional $6.6 million was requested to replace VCRs with digital video recorders.
The House approved $400.3 million for this account—a $32.0 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $10 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $397.7
million for this account—a $29.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $ 12.6 million less
than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $378.7 million, a 2.8% increase over
the FY2006 appropriation.
Defender Services
This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender
organizations, and the compensation, reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel
attorneys appointed by the courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of
federal crimes. The FY2007 request was $803.9 million—a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over
the FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested was reportedly to provide for
pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload increases arising from
Supreme Court rulings. The request also provided for the start-up of new federal defender
organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently, five judicial districts are not served by a
Federal Defender Office: Alabama (Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern),
Mississippi (Northern), and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested
funding would have provided 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500
cases. The House approved $750 million for this account—a $40.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $761.1 million for this account—a $51.3 million increase over the FY2006 level,
but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $776.3 million,
a 9.4% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account funds the fees and allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the
compensation of jury and land commissioners. The FY2007 request was $63.1 million—a $2.4
million (3.9%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase was due
mainly to inflationary costs associated with expenses paid to jurors. The House approved the full
amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The
FY2007 enacted amount was $60.9 million, a 0.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
27
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)
As the central support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of
administrative, management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts.
The AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and
implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2007
request for this account was $75.3 million—a $5.7 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level
of $69.6 million. The increase was reportedly for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments
and for the anticipated reduction in non-appropriated funds. The AOUSC also receives nonappropriated funds from fee collections and carryover balances to supplement its appropriation
requirements. The House approved $73.8 million for this account—a $4.2 million increase over
the FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $74.3 million for this account—a $4.7 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $72.4 million, a
4.0% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Federal Judicial Center
As the judiciary’s research and education entity, the center undertakes research and evaluation of
judicial operations for the Judicial Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center
provides judges, court staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training.
The center’s FY2007 request was $23.8 million—a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase was reportedly to fund adjustments to pay and other
expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the FY2005 level (nine additional FTEs).
The House approved $23.5 million for this account—a $1.4 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $23.4
million for this account—a $1.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less
than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $22.9 million, a 3.6% increase over
the FY2006 appropriation.
United States Sentencing Commission
The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal
criminal justice system. The FY2007 request was $15.7 million—a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase
over the FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the increase
would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five FTE positions in the
research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court decisions and recent legislation
have reportedly increased the commission’s workload, and the need for data collection and
analytical requirements. The House approved $15.5 million for this account—a $1.2 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate
committee recommended $ 15.3 million for this account—a $1.0 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was
$14.6 million, a 2.1% increase over FY2006 appropriation.
Judiciary Retirement Funds
This mandatory account provides for three trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy
and magistrate judges, retired Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent
children of deceased judicial officers. The FY2007 request was for $58.3 million—a $17.7
Congressional Research Service
28
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
million (43.6%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements for
this account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company. The large increase
reflected a change in methodology that a new actuary company had adopted to more accurately
project future liabilities that had not been taken into account in the past. (The new methodology
included a larger population of people who are likely to join the retirement system.) The House
approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also recommended
the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $58.3 million, the full amount requested.
Administrative Provisions
Some administrative provisions continued language that has appeared in previous years. The
House-passed bill included the following provisions, which apply to the judiciary only:
Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the judiciary to be
available for employment of experts and consultant services (as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109).
Section 402: To permit up to 5% of any appropriation made available for FY2007 to be
transferred between judiciary appropriations accounts—provided that no appropriation shall
be decreased by more than 5 percent or increased by more than 10 percent by any such
transfer except in certain circumstances. In addition, the language provides that any such
transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810 of the
accompanying bill), and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and
representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Section 404: To require a financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this
act.
Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-650) (extension of
a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita, Kansas).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended language similar to Sections 401-404 in the
House-passed bill, but excluded Section 405 concerning a judgeship (see above). The Senate
committee recommended the following additional provisions:
Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges.
Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration authorities as the
executive branch.
Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a courtroom and to
require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the circuit and district courts.
(Intent of the section is to address circumstances in which courtrooms are not in full use and
the sharing of courtrooms will help reduce the overburdened judicial docket.)
P.L. 110-5, Section 113, stipulated that the departments and agencies covered by the law,
including the judiciary, should submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within
30 days of enactment of the law a spending, expenditure, or operating plan for FY2007 at a “level
of detail below the account level.”
Congressional Research Service
29
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Among the administrative and technical provisions contained in P.L. 110-5 that apply only to the
judiciary are the following:
Section 21054. Authorizes the judiciary to transfer among its accounts not to exceed $81 million
to provide flexibility to meet operating requirements, as necessary.
Section 21056. Extends a temporary judgeship in Kansas.
Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office
of the President and Funds Appropriated to the
President
Table 8.Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds
Appropriated to the President Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
$450
$450
$450
51,952
51,952
51,952
53,616
12,312
12,041
12,041
12,041
12,398
White House Repair and Restoration
1,683
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,683
Council of Economic Advisors (CEA)
4,000
4,002
4,002
4,002
4,032
Office of Policy Development (OPD)
3,465
3,385
3,385
3,385
3,487
National Security Council (NSC)
8,618
8,405
8,405
8,405
8,684
—
—
—
1,500
—
Office of Administration (OA)
88,429
102,417
91,393
91,393
88,643
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)
76,161
68,780
76,185
76,185
76,714
Office of National Drug Control
(ONDCP)
26,639
23,309
26,928
11,500
26,766
Federal Drug Control Programs (total)
447,381
221,760
448,600
461,500
437,681
—High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program (HIDTAP)
224,730
0c
235,000
227,000
224,730
—Other Federal Drug Control
Programs
192,951
212,160
194,000
214,500
192,951
—Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center (CTAC)
29,700
9,600
19,600
20,000
20,000
990
11,789
1,000
1,000
990
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
Compensation of the President
$450
$450
The White House Office (WHO)
(salaries and expenses)
53,292
Executive Residence, White House
(operating expenses)
Office
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Boardb
Unanticipated Needs
Congressional Research Service
FY2007
House
Passed
30
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Office
FY2006
Enacteda
Unanticipated Needs for Natural
Disasters (emergency)
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
0
-11,789
0
0
0
Office of the Vice President (salaries
and expenses)
4,410
4,352
4,352
4,352
4,432
Official Residence of the Vice President
(operating expenses)
322
317
317
317
322
Total, EOP and Funds
Appropriated to the President
$728,152
$502,770
$730,610
$729,582
$719,898
Source: Figures are from the President’s budget request, the House Committee on Appropriations report
(H.Rept. 109-495), the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293) accompanying H.R. 5576,
and a Budget Authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations that shows FY2007 funding
under P.L. 110-5, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, enacted on Feb. 15, 2007. The figures are
rounded. The table includes an offset of a rescission under the unanticipated needs account.
a.
FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%.
b.
For FY2006 enacted, FY2007 budget request, and FY2007 House-passed, the appropriation for the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is included in the White House Office appropriation.
c.
The FY2007 budget proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice.
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues
All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded in the same
appropriations act, entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act. 19
The Office of Administration (OA) and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) are the only
accounts under the EOP (not including the federal drug control programs) for which increased
funding was requested for FY2007. The $14 million OA increase primarily results from the
movement of funds from other EOP components to the OA for enterprise services (discussed in
more detail below). The CEA increase was 0.05%. For the Unanticipated Needs account, the
budget requested $11.789 million, which was then offset by the requested rescission of $11.789
million from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters account. As for the remaining
accounts, except for that on Compensation of the President, which was unchanged, decreased
appropriations were requested for all other accounts under the EOP in FY2007. The OMB and
ONDCP accounts had the largest reductions—9.7% and 12.5%, respectively—from their FY2006
appropriation levels after the rescission. The reductions primarily resulted from the movement of
funds from these accounts to the Office of Administration for the continued centralization of
enterprise services. OMB also would have lost 11 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees).
The FY2007 budget, like the FY2006 budget, proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department
of Justice and to fund the program at $207.6 million. For FY2006, the conference committee
19
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
31
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
continued to fund the program under the EOP. This practice continues for FY2007 under P.L. 1105, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution.
For the sixth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed to consolidate and
financially realign several salaries and expenses accounts that directly support the President into a
single annual appropriation, called “The White House.” This consolidated appropriation would
total $184.252 million in FY2007 for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of
7.0% from the $172.249 million appropriated in FY2006 (after the 1.0% rescission). 20 The
increase primarily resulted from the Enterprise Services Initiative discussed below. The nine
accounts included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:
•
Compensation of the President,
•
White House Office,
•
Executive Residence at the White House,
•
White House Repair and Restoration,
•
Office of Policy Development,
•
Office of Administration,
•
Council of Economic Advisers, and
•
National Security Council.21
The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation “presents the best means for the President
to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response to changing needs and
priorities or emergent national needs.”22 The conference committees on the FY2002 through
FY2006 appropriations acts decided to continue with separate appropriations for the EOP
accounts to facilitate congressional oversight of their funding and operation. For FY2007, P.L.
110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, continues this practice.
The FY2007 budget requested a general provision in Title VI to continue and expand the
authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among several accounts under the
EOP. The authority would cover the following accounts in FY2007:
20
•
The White House, 23
•
Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
•
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
21
Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation,
“Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March
16, 2006, p. 1.
22
Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389);
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re
dacted).
23
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.
Congressional Research Service
32
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
•
Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice
President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the Vice President),
•
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality,
•
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
•
Office of the United States Trade Representative. 24
The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing) would be able to,
15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, transfer up to 10%
of any such appropriation to any other such appropriation. The transferred funds would be merged
with, and available for, the same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such
transfers could not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. According to the EOP budget
submission, the transfer authority would “allow the President to address, in a limited way,
emerging priorities and shifting demands” and would “provide the President with flexibility and
improve the efficiency of the EOP.” The authority “is not intended to be used for new missions or
programs” and the need for it “arises in part due to the large number of small accounts at the
President’s discretion, as well as the need to be responsive to a dynamic environment.”25
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533, Title V, Division H) authorized
transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the White House
Office, OMB, ONDCP, and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the
Vice President. For FY2006, P.L. 109-115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White
House and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President.
An enterprise services initiative was included in the FY2007 budget request to make the
administration of certain services simpler and more efficient. Services included in the initiative
would be expanded to include burn bag pickup costs, employee transportation subsidies, and
Flexible Spending Account administrative fees. The budgets for these services in the WHO,
Executive Residence at the White House, OPD, NSC, CEA, OMB, ONDCP, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, United States Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental
Quality would be moved into the OA. In order to “be consistent with other EOP components,” the
budgets for health unit services, space-related rent costs, and rent-based Federal Protective
Service in OMB and ONDCP also would be included in the OA.26
As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and as passed by the House, the FY2007
TTHUD appropriations bill continued separate appropriations for the EOP accounts. The
provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was continued.
Notable among the appropriations for the EOP accounts were the following.
24
In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in
FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes.
25
$39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract
authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion.
26
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
33
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
•
An appropriation of up to $1.5 million for the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board, an account under the White House Office, was recommended
by the House committee. Under an amendment (No. 1025) offered by
Representative Christopher Shays and agreed to by the House by voice vote on
June 13, 2006, funding for the Board would be increased by $750,000.
•
An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for the OA, $11 million less than
the FY2007 budget request. Funding for the OMB and ONDCP rental payments
to GSA, $7.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, was continued under salaries
and expenses for those respective accounts.
•
An appropriation of $26.9 million was provided for ONDCP. The increase of
$3.6 million over the FY2007 budget request was accounted for by continuing
the funding for rental payments to GSA under this account rather than
transferring it to the OA.
•
An appropriation of $19.6 million was provided for the CTAC, $10 million more
than the FY2007 budget request. The increase was for the Technology Transfer
Program whose termination was requested by the Administration.
•
An appropriation of $227 million, $2.3 million above the FY2006 enacted level
after the rescission, for the HIDTAP (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program) was recommended by the House committee. Increased funding was
recommended for the Appalachian, Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs
(High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas). The program was continued under the
EOP, rather than under the Department of Justice as the FY2007 budget
requested. Under an amendment (No. 1026) offered by Representative Darlene
Hooley and agreed to by the House on a 348 to 76 (Roll No. 273) vote on June
13, 2006, funding for the HIDTAP would be increased by $8 million.
•
An appropriation of $194 million was provided for Other Federal Drug Control
Programs, $18.2 million less than the FY2007 budget request. The Drug Free
Communities initiative was funded at $80 million (rather than at $79.2 million, as
requested), the National Drug Court Institute was funded at $1 million (rather
than at $990,000, as requested), the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws
was funded at $1 million (no funding was requested), and the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded at $100 million (rather than at $120
million, as requested).
•
An appropriation of $1 million was provided for unanticipated needs. The
rescission of $11.8 million in emergency funds (from the Unanticipated Needs
for Natural Disasters Account) to offset non-emergency appropriations, as
requested in the FY2007 budget, was not included.
The report accompanying the bill addressed several policy issues. It expressed the Appropriations
Committee’s “serious concerns about the continued forced implementation” of the E-Gov
initiative on departments and agencies. Stating its belief that “Many aspects of this initiative are
fundamentally flawed, contradict underlying program statutory requirements and have stifled
innovation by forcing conformity to an arbitrary government standard,” the committee noted that
the FY2007 bill continued the “government-wide general provision that precludes the use of
Congressional Research Service
34
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
funds” for the initiative without prior consultation with the committee. 27 The provision was
included as Section 938 of the House-passed bill and as Section 839 of the Senate bill as reported.
The report noted the committee’s “concern that the ONDCP has resisted focusing its programs to
fighting the alarming rise in domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse” and
stated that future funding of the office’s priorities could not be ensured if Congress continues to
be ignored. The Director of the ONDCP was directed to include “an analysis of options and
recommendations for the future course of counterdrug technology research” in the office’s budget
submission for FY2008. The committee directed the ONDCP Director to submit a financial plan,
to be updated every six months, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to
the initial obligation of funds provided for FY2007. The first plan was due within 30 days of the
act’s enactment. Any new projects and changes in the funding of ongoing projects must receive
the prior approval of the appropriations committees. 28
In a statement of administration policy on H.R. 5576, OMB urged that the White House accounts
be consolidated, the authority to transfer up to 10% of budgetary resources within EOP accounts
be expanded, and the Enterprise Services initiative be expanded, as requested in the FY2007
budget. The Administration expressed concern about the House action to reduce funding for the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign by $20 million. 29
As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5576 continued separate
appropriations for the EOP accounts, with one exception discussed below. The provision
authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was continued. According to
the report accompanying the bill, the committee rejected “a single, consolidated account” because
“it would undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight” of the
expenditure of funds. The committee incorporated the responsibilities of the Office of Policy
Development (with its $3.4 million appropriation) into the White House Office salaries and
expenses account “to allow the White House to better manage its resources.”30 The committee
expressed its belief that oversight of the use of the OPD funds will be adequate under this merger.
Among the committee’s directives and funding recommendations for the EOP accounts were the
following.
27
•
The EOP was encouraged to submit its FY2008 budget justification within a few
days of the transmittal of the President’s budget to Congress. The justification
was to include detailed budget information for the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board.
•
A separate appropriation of $1.5 million was provided for the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board. (The House-passed bill funded the Board as part of
the appropriation for the White House Office.)
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
28
Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation,
“Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March
16, 2006, p. 1.
29
Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389);
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re
dacted).
30
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.
Congressional Research Service
35
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
•
Under the Executive Residence at the White House account, restrictions on
reimbursable expenses for use of the residence, enacted for FY2004, were
continued.
•
An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for OA, the same amount as
passed by the House, but some $11 million less than the FY2007 budget request.
The committee report stated that OA “receives reimbursements for information
management support and general office services.”31
•
An appropriation of $76.2 million was provided for OMB, the same amount as
passed by the House and $7.4 million more than the FY2007 budget request. The
committee report directed the OMB Director, assisted by appropriate federal
agencies, to report to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations on
“the administration’s and OMB’s plans to monitor, measure, and increase Federal
agency performance and participation in energy and environmental
management.” Possible statutory obstacles to meeting energy savings goals
should be addressed in the report which must be submitted within 120 days of the
act’s enactment. “[P]roducts and services that guarantee energy and taxpayer
savings, that measure performance, and that involve public/private partnerships”
are of particular interest to the committee. 32
•
An appropriation of $11.5 million was provided for ONDCP, $11.8 million less
than the FY2007 budget request and $15.4 million less than the House-passed
funding. The committee report stated that the appropriation had been reduced “to
more closely reflect actual performance.” Funding of $1.5 million was provided
for a study of ONDCP’s organization and management to be conducted by the
National Academy of Public Administration and to begin within 60 days of the
act’s enactment. “Quarterly reports on travel expenditures, summarized by office,
program, and individual, including dates and purpose of travel” were to be
provided by the ONDCP Director to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.33 The ONDCP Director was further directed to provide quarterly
staffing reports, including plans to hire additional staff, to the Appropriations
Committees. The office, position, title, salary, and job classifications of all
ONDCP staff, including contractors, should be included in the report.
•
An appropriation of $227 million was provided for HIDTAP, $8 million less than
the House-passed funding. The FY2007 budget proposed to transfer the HIDTAP
to the Department of Justice. In providing funding for the HIDTAP, the
committee report stated that the program was an important function of ONDCP.
Among the directives for the office are these: that the ONDCP Director “take
appropriate steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are transferred to the
appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously” and the entities receiving the
resources apply them “strictly for implementing the strategy for each HIDTA,
taking into consideration local conditions and resource requirements” and that
31
In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in
FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes.
32
$39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract
authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion.
33
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
36
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
ONCDP “hold back all HIDTA funds from a State” until the State or locality
meets its financial obligation.34
•
An appropriation of $214.5 million was provided for other federal drug control
programs, $2.3 million more than the FY2007 budget request and $20.5 million
more than the House-passed funding. The appropriation was allocated as shown
in Table 9, below. Of the $120 million provided for the National Youth AntiDrug Media Campaign, $15 million was to fund continued advertising against the
use of methamphetamine. No more than 10% of the campaign’s appropriation
could be used for administrative costs. The committee directed that $2 million of
the $80 million provided to the Drug-Free Communities Support Program was a
direct grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for the National
Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. In providing membership dues for the
World Anti-Doping Agency, “the Committee directs ONDCP to use its voice and
vote as the United States’ representative ... to ensure that all countries’ athletes
are subject to fair and equal standards and treatment.”35
Table 9. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding Recommendations for
Federal Drug Control Programs in the Executive Office of the President, FY2007
Program
Appropriation Recommended
(In thousands $)
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
$120,000
Drug-Free Communities Support Program
80,000
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
9,000
National Drug Court Institute
1,000
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws
1,000
Performance Measure Development
2,000
World Anti-Doping Agency
1,500
•
An appropriation of $20 million was provided for the CTAC, $10.4 million more
than the FY2007 budget request and $400,000 more than the House-passed
funding. The funding was allocated as $10 million each for the demand reduction
program and the Technology Transfer Program. With regard to the former
program, the committee again directed that the FY2006 ONDCP operating plan,
which had not been received by the committee, be submitted within 30 days after
the act’s enactment. The plan was to “include an accounting of the use of the
FY2006 CTAC R&D appropriated funds and an accounting of all FY2006 funds
that are unobligated and unexpended and the rationale for inaction.” A spending
plan for FY2007 must be submitted to the committee that includes “technology
development projects that would provide researchers with the tools to conduct
more advanced ... drug addiction and scientific studies.” Within 45 days of the
34
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation,
“Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March
16, 2006, p. 1.
35
Congressional Research Service
37
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
act’s enactment, FY2007 “funds with expenditure project execution authority
[must] be completed and transferred to other Federal departments and agencies.”
As for the technology transfer program (TTP), the FY2008 budget request for
CTAC must include “the total number of TTP applications received and the
number awarded in the previous year” to permit the committee to “have a true
understanding of CTAC’s ability to meet demand.”36
No further action occurred on H.R. 5576. P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution for FY2007, continues appropriations through September 30, 2007, at the levels
shown in Table 8, above. Sections 21057 through 21059 of P.L. 110-5 include requirements and
directives for the appropriations for the federal drug control programs. Among these are a
provision stating that “The structure of any of the offices or components within the Office of
National Drug Control Policy shall remain as they were on October 1, 2006, and none of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available ... may be used to implement a reorganization of
offices within the Office of National Drug Control Policy without the explicit approval” of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.37
Title VII: Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a diverse collection of
21 independent agencies receive funding through Title VII of this appropriations bill. Table 10
lists their respective appropriations for FY2006 as enacted, and for FY2007 as requested in the
President’s Budget, passed by the House, reported in the Senate, and ultimately enacted in P.L.
110-5. Discussion following the table focuses on key budget and policy issues in some of the
larger agencies.
Table 10.Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
Consumer Product Safety Commission
63
63
63
62
63
Election Assistance Commission
14
17
17
17
16
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
Office of Inspector General (transfer)
31
26
26
26
31
Federal Election Commission
55
57
57
57
55
Federal Labor Relations Authority
25
25
25
25
25
Agency
36
Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389);
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re
dacted).
37
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.
Congressional Research Service
38
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
Federal Maritime Commission
20
21
21
21
20
General Services Administration
217
450
203
466
303
Merit Systems Protection Board
38
39
39
39
39
Morris K. Udall Foundation
4
0
2
2
4
326
338
338
348
331
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
941
941
941
941
941
National Transportation Safety Board
77
80
82
80
78
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
117
120
120
120
117
Office of Government Ethics
11
11
11
11
11
18,742
19,607
19, 580
19,607
19,594
123
113
113
113
112
Government Payments for Annuitants,
Employees Health Benefits
8,393
8,780
8,780
8,780
8,780
Government Payments for Annuitants,
Employee Life Insurance
36
39
39
39
39
10,072
10,532
10,532
10,532
10,532
Office of Special Counsel
15
16
16
16
16
Selective Service Systemb
25
24
24
24
25
United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness
2
2
2
2
2
United States Postal Service
116
80
109
109
109
United States Tax Court
48
47
47
47
48
$19,936
$20,999
$20,708
$20,984
c
Agency
National Archives and Records
Administration
National Credit Union Administration
Limitation on direct loans
Community Development Revolving Loan
Fund
Office of Personnel Management (total)
Salaries and Expenses
Payment to Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund
Total, Independent Agencies
Source: Figures are rounded and come from the President’s budget request for FY2007, H.R. 5576 as passed
the House, Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S.Rept. 109-293), and a Budget Authority table provided
by the House Committee on Appropriations that shows FY2007 funding under P.L. 110-5, Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, enacted on Feb. 15, 2007.
a.
FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%.
b.
Selective Service System was included in the House bill; in the Senate, this agency was in the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
c.
No single table available from the House Appropriations Committee shows the enacted FY2007 total for
these agencies; as of January 2007 they were divided among two appropriations subcommittees.
Congressional Research Service
39
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
The FEC administers federal campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure
requirements, limits on contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public
funding system; the FEC retains civil enforcement authority for the law.
The President’s fiscal 2007 budget proposed an appropriation of $57.1 million for the FEC, a
5.5% increase above the fiscal 2006 appropriation of $54.2 million. Of this amount, at least $4.7
million was proposed to be designated for internal automated data systems and $5,000 for
representational and reception expenses. Both the House Appropriations Committee and the full
House accepted the overall amount proposed by the Administration but raised the $4.7 million
minimum for automated data systems to $6.5 million. The agency was further authorized to
collect registration fees for conferences, with such fees credited to the agency to help defray costs
of such conferences. In addition, the House committee report commended the FEC on the
implementation of its Administrative Fine Program, which allows the agency to assess fines for
reporting violations, but it expressed concern that the program had not yet been authorized
beyond December 31, 2008. The committee urged the FEC to work with the authorizing
committee to achieve permanent authorization of the program prior to the FY2008 appropriations
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee matched the House appropriation of $57.1 million
for FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not comment on the Administrative
Fine Program or provide additional instructions to the FEC. Despite the proposed increase in
FY2007 FEC appropriations requested in the President’s budget and supported in the Housepassed and Senate-reported legislation, The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution (H.J.Res. 20/(P.L. 110-5) extended the FY2006 FEC funding level for FY2007. FEC
funding therefore remained at $54.5 million ($55 million), as shown in Table 10.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
The FLRA, to the extent feasible, continues to implement the five government-wide goals of the
President’s Management Agenda during FY2007. Under the strategic management of human
capital goal, the FLRA plans to implement cost savings measures to address projected changes in
workload resulting from the implementation of the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure)
decisions and new personnel systems at the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland
Security (DHS). The FLRA reported that its regional workload declined by 32% between 2001
and 2004, and that this trend may continue because of the DOD and DHS reforms. The agency
also plans to streamline and consolidate the FLRA’s training functions and implement additional
workforce flexibilities through OPM. As enacted, FLRA received $25 million for FY2007, the
same amount (rounded) as in FY2006, and as passed by the House and reported in the Senate for
FY2007.
General Services Administration (GSA)
The General Services Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining
to the construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal property,
and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for managing the funding
and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions. Typically only about 1% of GSA’s
total budget is funded by direct appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
40
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
As shown in Table 11, for FY2007, the President requested $52.5 million for government-wide
policy and $83 million for operating expenses; $44 million for the Office of Inspector General; $3
million for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; and $16.9 million to be deposited
into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. H.R. 5576, as reported and passed in the
House, mirrored these figures. Likewise, as reported in the Senate, the requested amounts were
recommended.
The FY2007 appropriations for GSA enacted in P.L. 110-5 ultimately authorized $52.3 million for
government-wide policy and $83.2 million for operating expenses; $52.6 million for the Office of
Inspector General; $2.9 million for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; and $14.9
million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. In comparison with the
previous House and Senate versions, the enacted FY2007 appropriation provided $8.6 million
more for the Office of Inspector General and $2 million less for the Federal Citizen Information
Center Fund. With respect to GSA total direct appropriations, FY2007 as enacted came to $303
million, representing an increase of $86 million over the total enacted for FY2006.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)
Most GSA spending is financed through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Rent assessments
from agencies paid into the FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also
provide direct funding into the FBF. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on
spending of funds from the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual appropriations.
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
$7,181
$8,065
$7,555
690
212
708
701
861
866
478
866
618
168
164
164
164
164
Limitation on Obligations:
Rental of Space
4,046
4,323
4,323
4,323
4,068
Limitation on Obligations:
Building Operations
1,885
2,004
2,004
2,004
2,004
243
94
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
$7,753
$8,047
Limitations on Obligation:
New Construction Projects
792
Limitations on Obligation:
Repairs and Alterations
Limitation on Obligation:
Installment Acquisition Payments
Fund/Office
FY2007
House
Federal Buildings Fund
Total Limitations on Availability of
Revenues
Request for Additional Amount
245
General Activities Accounts
Government-wide Policy
52
53
53
53
52
Operating Expenses
99
83
80
83
83
Congressional Research Service
41
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
Fund/Office
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
Reported
FY2007
Enacted
Office of Inspector General
43
44
44
44
53
Allowances and Office Staff for
Former Presidents
3
3
3
3
3
Federal Citizen Information Center
Fund
15
17
17
17
15
3
5
3
5
3
$217
$450
$203
$205
$303
Electronic Gov’t (E-Gov) Fund
GSA direct appropriations total
Source: The President’s budget request for FY2007, the House Committee on Appropriations report (H.Rept.
109-495), the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293), and a Budget Authority table
provided by the House Committee on Appropriations that shows FY2007 funding under P.L. 110-5, Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, enacted on Feb. 15, 2007.
For FY2007, the President had requested that an additional amount of $245 million be deposited
in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at $8.047 billion. The President’s
budget further requested that $690 million remain available until expended for new construction
projects from the FBF, and $866 million remain available until expended for repairs and
alterations.
As reported and passed in the House, there would have been a total limitation of $7.740 billion
for the FBF, in FY2007, a decrease of $12 million below the FY2006 enacted levels, and a
decrease of $307 million below the President’s request. According to the House approved
language, to carry out the purposes of the FBF, $383.9 million would remain available until
expended for new construction projects, and $866.2 million would remain available until
expended for repairs and alterations.
As reported in the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended a total limitation for
the FBF in FY2007 of $8.065 billion, which constituted $884 million more than allowed by the
House; $708.2 million for new construction, more than $496 million above the House passed
version; and new obligational authority of $866.2 million for repairs and alterations, nearly $388
million more than approved by the House.
As enacted, P.L. 110-5 provided that for FY2007, an additional amount of $93.6 million be
deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at $7.555 billion. The
FY2007 enacted legislation further provided that $701.1 million remain available until expended
for new construction projects from the FBF, and $618.2 million remain available until expended
for repairs and alterations.
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund)
Originally unveiled in advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-gov Fund
and its appropriation has been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and
Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which was the amount
provided for FY2003 as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3 million for FY2004, FY2005, and
FY2006. Created to support interagency e-gov initiatives approved by the Director of OMB, the
fund and the projects it funds have been subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to,
congressional appropriators. The President requested $5 million for FY2007 and Senate
Congressional Research Service
42
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
appropriators concurred, but the House approved the usual $3 million, as recommended in the
House Appropriations Committee report. The final amount provided for FY2007 was $2.9
million.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
The MSPB request in the President’s budget for increased funding for FY2007 was to cover pay
raises, performance management training for staff, and higher space rental rates. Additionally,
$495,000 of the amount requested was to relocate the San Francisco office to a building which is
fully compliant with current earthquake standards. The MSPB continues to adjudicate appeals,
but with faster processing times, under the new personnel systems currently being implemented at
DOD and DHS. The Board also is in the process of hiring the additional staff authorized by
Congress in FY2006 and needed to meet the increased demands of DOD and DHS. The FY2007
appropriations enacted for the MSPB was $39 million (rounded), $1 million more than for
FY2006.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
The custodian of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its
establishment in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and
management assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the
presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and other
documents; assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which manages federal
security classification and declassification policy; and assists the National Historical Publications
and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes grants nationwide to help nonprofit
organizations identify, preserve, and provide access to materials that document American history.
For FY2007, the President had requested $338 million for NARA, a modest increase over the
$326 million appropriated for the agency for FY2006. Of this requested amount, the following
distributions were specified: $289.6 million for operating expenses, a slight increase over the
$280 million appropriated for FY2006; $45 million for the electronic records archive; $13 million
for repairs and restoration; and no requested funds for the NHPRC, which had received $7 million
in FY2006.
The House approved the $345.5 million recommended by the appropriators for NARA, which is
approximately $7.5 million more than the amount requested for the agency in the President’s
budget. Of this amount, distributions were as follows: $289.6 million for operating expenses, $45
million for the electronic records archive, and $13 million for repairs and restoration. For the
NHPRC account, $7.5 million was recommended—$2 million for operations and the remainder
for grants. A $10 million debt adjustment in committee reduced the $355.5 million allocation to
$345.5 million.
The Senate approved $328 million for NARA, distributed as follows: $280.9 million for
operating expenses; $38.9 million for the electronic records archive, with $3 million of these
funds designated for work with the National Oceanographic Office at the National Center for
Critical Information Processing and Storage at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi; and a
little over $11.6 million for repairs and restoration, with $5.5 million of this amount provided for
projects at a new regional archives and records center in Alaska and at the Kennedy and Johnson
Congressional Research Service
43
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
presidential libraries. For the NHPRC account, $5 million was allocated. An almost $8.5 million
debt adjustment was also accepted.
The final amount approved for NARA, with $10 million for debt reduction, was $331 million,
allocated in the following distributions: $279 million for operating expenses, $45 million for the
electronic records archive, $9 million for repairs and restoration, and almost $7.5 million for the
NHPRC grants program.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Funding for the following projects was included in OPM’s FY2007 request for salaries and
expenses: Enterprise Human Resources Integration ($6.9 million) and Human Resources Line of
Business ($1.4 million). A priority of the agency during 2007 is the implementation of reforms to
the position classification, pay, and performance management systems included in the Working
For America Act draft legislative proposal submitted to Congress in July 2005 (not yet
introduced). OPM also is giving priority to the issues of recruitment, the hiring process, training,
career and professional development, dental and vision benefits, and health benefits options. The
agency’s Inspector General continues to develop a prescription drug audit program, which
includes pharmacy benefit managers, to assist in recovering inappropriate expenses charged in
previous years and negotiating more favorable contracts.
The House bill as passed provided the same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses as
requested by the President (albeit down $10 million from FY2006), but the allocation of the
funding was changed. An increase in funds was denied for pay and performance modernization,
and instead, the Management Services Division account was increased. The bill did not fund an
increase for the retirement systems modernization project and therefore reduces the amount
authorized to be transferred from trust funds. The committee report accompanying the bill
directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to continue to monitor implementation of
the retirement modernization program and update the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 1, 2007, “as to OPM’s progress in converting the agency’s paper
personnel file system into a secure digital system.” It included several directives for OPM:
•
to continue implementing and refining the new human resources management
systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense before expanding
such systems to other departments and agencies.
•
to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an operating
plan for FY2007 signed by the OPM Director. The plan must be submitted within
60 days of the act’s enactment. It must include “funding levels including an
identification of carryover funds for the various offices, centers, programs, and
initiatives covered in the budget justification and supporting documents
referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports and the statement of
the managers.”
•
to include changes—dollars requested broken out between trust fund and general
funds for specific programs or activities within organizations, a total that includes
reimbursements, and a breakout of direct appropriation and reimbursement—in
future budget justifications.
Congressional Research Service
44
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
•
to continue efforts to include “clear, detailed, and concise information on how the
programs will be funded and how they will be measured” in the budget
justification.
H.R. 5576, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have provided the
same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses and for Office of Inspector General salaries
and expenses that the FY2007 budget requested and the House passed. As requested by the
President, up to $8.3 million dollars of the funding could be used for e-Government projects. The
Senate committee report also included several directives for OPM:
•
to report to the committee within 120 days of the act’s enactment on its human
resources products and services and actions taken to respond to the committee’s
concerns that OPM is not allowing federal agencies “the flexibility to contract as
they see fit, including contracting with private companies to provide online
employment applications and processing services, as well as choice in selecting
service providers and human resource systems.”
•
to report on progress in implementing any recommendations in the forthcoming
OPM and GSA survey and report on the child care needs of executive,
legislative, and judicial branch employees within six months after the report is
issued, and to include in the report any further measures that may be taken. OPM
is also directed “to continue its efforts to provide information and education to
agencies and employees on promotion of the subsidy for child care expenses for
lower income employees.”38
•
to continue to give GAO’s recommendations on modernization of the retirement
system—especially related to progress, costs, and risks—careful consideration
and to closely consult with GAO in the future.
The FY2007 total appropriations for OPM as enacted was $19.594 billion, more than the Housepassed version but less than the figure in the President’s request and the Senate-reported versions.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
The funding recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations ($16 million) was
$63,000 more than the amount requested in the FY2007 budget or in the House-passed bill
($15.937 million). The committee’s report directed the OSC to:
•
Submit its FY2008 budget justification on the first Monday in February and to
“include highly detailed data and explanatory statements to support the
appropriations requests, including tables that detail OSC’s programs, activities
and staffing levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.” The agency was directed to
coordinate with the committee “well in advance on its planned budget
submission.”
•
Submit to Congress, with the FY2008 budget request, “a comprehensive strategy
addressing capital needs and case processing in order to prevent any future
38
In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in
FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes.
Congressional Research Service
45
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
backlog of cases.”39 The agency was also directed to provide quarterly staffing
reports from the Special Counsel to Congress.
•
Communicate with the committee 45 days prior to any organizational change that
would cause the agency’s staffing to vary above or below these levels: 70 to 75
FTEs (headquarters), 6 to 8 FTEs (Detroit), 9 to 11 FTEs (Dallas), 8 to 10 FTEs
(San Francisco Bay area), and 9 to 12 FTEs (District of Columbia field office).
The OSC’s total number of FTEs should not be less than 102 or greater than 116.
Postal Service40
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is self-supporting; it generates nearly all of its funding—over
$70 billion annually—by charging users of the mail for the costs of the services it provides.
Congress does provide a regular appropriation, however, to compensate USPS for revenue it
forgoes in providing, at congressional direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and for
overseas voting. Congress has also provided some funds in recent years for bio-terrorism
detection in the wake of the anthrax events of 2001.
Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is authorized to reimburse USPS $29
million each year until 2035, for services provided below cost to non-profit organizations at
congressional direction in the 1990s, but not paid for at the time. For the past 13 years, the Postal
Service appropriation has consisted of that amount, plus an estimate of the amount needed to pay
for mail for the blind and overseas voters for the current year.
In its FY2007 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $79.9 million, including
$60.7 million for revenue forgone in FY2007 and a reconciliation adjustment for underestimated
mail volume in FY2004 of $19.2 million. The Postal Service, which submits its own request as an
independent entity, estimated that the FY2007 amount needed for the blind and overseas voting
would be $80.1 million, or $19.4 million more than OMB requested, and asked Congress to
appropriate that amount. Both proposals would have supplemented the FY2007 amount with a
$19.2 million reconciliation adjustment reflecting that actual use of the subsidy in FY2004 was
underestimated by that amount. The Postal Service’s request also included a reconciliation
adjustment of $24.4 million reflecting the amount by which actual expenditures for FY2005
exceeded the amount appropriated that year. Thus the Postal Service’s request for FY2007 was
$152.7 million: including $80.1 million for FY2007 revenue forgone, $43.6 million as a
reconciliation adjustment for two years, and $29 million as the annual payment under the
Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget not only estimated a lower usage figure for mail for the
blind than did the Postal Service, it also proposed to eliminate the usual $29 million annual
payment for revenue forgone in past years that is set forth in the Revenue Forgone Reform Act. It
also proposed termination of the payment in FY2005 and FY2006, but Congress chose to provide
the funding. USPS has argued that cancelling the payment could result in the whole 28-year
obligation, totaling $841 million, being written off as a bad debt and charged to current postal
ratepayers. The Administration’s budget also proposed that the $79.9 million it requested would
39
$39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract
authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion.
40
Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.
Congressional Research Service
46
TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations
not be available for obligation until October 1, 2007, which is in FY2008, following a practice for
the postal appropriation established several years ago.
The House bill, as reported by committee and passed by the House, adopted the Administration’s
recommendation by providing $79.9 million for the current year’s revenue forgone, as an advance
appropriation, but departed from it in once again by approving the annual $29 million for revenue
forgone in the past. The committee report (H.Rept. 109-495) commented that the method OMB
used to estimate revenue forgone expenditures, which is to take an average of past expenses, was
“inaccurate” compared to the Postal Service’s estimate, which is based on current audits of mail
volume. The Senate Committee mirrored the action of the House, providing $108.9 million for
the Postal Service Fund. Its report (S.Rept. 109-293) also “directed” the Postal Service not to
implement mail processing center consolidations in Iowa, South Dakota, and Washington until
GAO has issued a report on decision-making criteria used in such consolidations.
Ultimately, the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution provided USPS $108.9 in
FY2007 appropriations, with $79.9 million in advanced appropriations for the current year’s
revenue forgone, and $29 million for revenue forgone in the past.
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General
Provisions Government-Wide
The Transportation,
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.